Well, that would make a film bad for me anyway. If it makes no sense, it's no good.Futurenerd said:Sure it wouldn't make any sense at all, but could you honestly say that otherwise it wouldn't be a good movie?
Ok, that aside: Matrix 1 combined an intriguing story, amazing stunts and kung fu together with well set-up climactic fight scenes paced well against plot and character development. It was incredible when it came out, and the lobby scene lives on for many people as one of the coolest action scenes ever. (well, for me at least
Matrix 2, whilst maintaining the stunts and kung fu, and successfully introducing new characters, suffered from being treated as an obvious setup for part 3. My memories of the non-actions scenes seem pretty much to be merely set-ups for said action scenes, rather than key parts of the plot in of themselves. Coupled with an abrupt and inconclusive ending, the weakness of the plot make it distinctly sub-matrix 1.
Matrix 3 is basically CGI machines ripping apart CGI APUs in a CGI cave followed by CGI Neo flying through the sky fighting a CGI Smith. Seriously, watch the fight scenes from the first one and then the third and tell me that there is ANY comparison between the finely choreographed skill of the first, supplemented by wires, and the boring, Dragon Ball-Z-esq CGI slug-fest of the third. The plot became pretty metaphorical, which I can deal with, but in doing so it lost all the intrigue and interest that the first film had.
They got worse as they went on. The trilogy would have been far better if they'd had the time and resources to make the last two stand apart more, and to be more self-contained. Less gratuitous CGI would also have been nice, especially in that final battle - less flying, more damn kung fu!